You would not know it from reading the news, but the Iran nuclear deal is still alive. The Europeans, however, are faced with an impossible task: to preserve an international agreement that cannot survive without Washington’s backing in the face of an aggressive US posture toward Tehran.

As for what Europe’s approach should be toward the United States, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas recently described it as: cooperate wherever possible, fill the vacuum that a receding superpower creates, and stand your ground when there is profound disagreement. The Europeans are trying hard on all three fronts but without a real chance of succeeding.

Let’s start with the most obvious point—whether the European Union (EU) can stand firm on the Iran nuclear deal itself. Indeed, Brussels has not only vowed to defend its companies from US sanctions for doing legitimate business with Iran, it has also passed the respective legislative act in time for the re-imposition of US sanctions. European policymakers may be hoping they do not actually have to apply this “blocking regulation,” just as in the late 1990s when the EU and the United States both agreed to waive their mutual sanctions. Ultimately, recovering fines imposed by the US Treasury on European companies from the US government is highly unlikely; the fact that the European Commission published detailed guidelines as to how his could be done regardless, at least shows that the EU means business. This notwithstanding, no legal act can prevent companies with a stake in the US market to take the rational decision to prioritize that business and leave the Iranian market, as the likes of Airbus, Maersk, Peugeot, Siemens, and Total have already done.

Europe, in short, does not have the political power to defend the Iran deal with Washington gone rogue on its commitment. It cannot keep up economic ties against US pressure, much as policymakers in Iran demand precisely that. Still, trying its best to do so is worthwhile also in political terms and may in the long run help fill the vacuum created by the uncooperative partner. Opening up alternative payment channels that are not subject to US sanctions, thus making any dollar transaction impossible, is an important element of a broader strategy toward financial independence. It is not only relevant with regard to Iran but also toward Russia, where the EU may not want to follow any and all US policies but is currently compelled to do so. Similarly, providing €18 million for private sector development in Iran, for, in particular, small- and medium-sized businesses, is “pistachios” compared to the billions of dollars Tehran loses in other trade. Yet by doing so the EU shows a tangible commitment to maintaining commercial relations with Iran, a move that has—despite the negligible sum involved—immediately drawn the ire of policymakers in Washington.

Which leaves the first point about continued transatlantic cooperation, desirable whenever feasible. On Iran, however, there is currently no way for the two sides of the Atlantic to come together: the three European signatories of the deal (France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) had tried to find common ground with the United States earlier this year on areas of mutual concern, such as Iran’s missile program, its involvement in the region’s conflicts, and a continuation of its nuclear commitments after 2025—only to be snubbed by Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the deal. The current US “strategy,” a fourteen-point list of demands for Tehran’s submission, seems to have only one intention: to destabilize and ultimately bring down the Islamic Republic. Much as the Europeans would similarly wish for a free and democratic Iran, they are unwilling to collaborate on this approach—and rightly so.

Yet beyond deploring Washington’s (deplorable) go-it-alone attitude, the EU should come up with proposals of its own. Whether it is the wars in Syria and Yemen, the situation in Iraq or Lebanon, or indeed the conundrum that Europeans still like to refer to as the “Middle East peace process”– only if the EU contributes both ideas and means does it stand the chance to be taken seriously by its US partner as well as by regional actors (and, obviously, by Russia too). The nuclear deal, despite its multilateral setting and international legitimacy, has ultimately been about Iran and the United States coming together on at least one crucial issue. After Washington’s withdrawal, its fate will not be decided in European capitals, in Beijing or Moscow, but in Tehran: it will be “alive” for as long as Iran complies with its terms. The EU is a supporting actor, if also a crucial one: it cannot neutralize one party’s willingness to scuttle the deal, neither by blocking US actions nor by compensating Iran for dwindling business. Yet it can—and must—uphold its part regardless, all while actively extending its role beyond the nuclear file.

If The EUROPEANS become Invisible in The WORLD DIPLOMACY, though it will be a Pity: No Use to Go on Weeping about that Absence since It will be "willingness" Omission to Act and Imply themselves! Then the US, Iran and other climbing Powers in Influence such as Russia ( could Armement be considered as a Clue of Advantage) and China fo its Wealth Weight! None can IGNORE Israel: It's a Nation which is an Exception, since the State of ISRAEL is a Island of Democratic Rule and of the Rule-of-Law in an lawless (almost) self-deteriorating Area, in addition Israel is a Nuclear Power Iran threatens firstly.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Alexis de Pleshcoy

September 16, 20183:40 pm

2500 years ago, Cyrus’ Cylinder described the inner workings of the first functional multinational empire.
It was acknowledged as such by other sources, but unfortunately like many good ideas has been mostly forgotten or ignored, a handful of times followed.
Proto-UN or not, after the first act of the war started in 1914 the League of Nations might have opened the path to a global empire of willing nations. It failed catastrophically, so after the second act of the war started in 1914 the UN came along. This time it was an inch closer to bind together willing nations.
As time progresses, the UN unfortunately appears to follow the path of the Achaemenid Empire and League of Nations, with consequences difficult to assess in a world whose clock is two minutes to midnight.
The UN should have been the main actor and guarantor of this Plan of Action, of course with India getting temporary veto power, in accordance with her military strength (and importing 80% of her oil, as well as almost neighbor); GCC and Israel, ideally, participate directly.
On a separate track, could the Shia Sunni divide be alleviated? It would be an extraordinary step in the right direction, but with the Schism of 1054 still around us, it could be the future generation who might reach religious harmony.
The JCPOA was not ratified by the US Congress, but it will still be perceived as a breach of trust by Iran, long spring, after Baghdad air policing, Mossadegh, the Iran-Iraq war.
It is also clear that what has been happening in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar is not conducive to trust.
It is very difficult to understand why the EU/US NATO powers couldn’t agree on a JCPOA, better no plan that these vacillations. On a separate note these powers might have soon to fight together, bound by Article 5, as the war started in 1914 still rages unabated, just armistices, never peace.
As immediate consequences the price of oil could escalate, one of the factors that indirectly contributed to 2008 financial crisis (housing has recovered in the US).
It is also obvious that the climate change has entered a positive feedback loop, which will accelerate drought in many parts of the world, including Iran.
Since Cyrus the Great and his first empire to the fallen empires of Europe peace is always better.
The dinosaurs of 65 million years ago are the many magnificent birds surrounding us, survivors of 16 billion Hiroshima bombs detonating at the same time, but without nuclear fallout. Would we be as lucky as they were?

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Jean Baptiste MUNYARUGERO

September 22, 20181:31 pm

Nonetheless, Europe is the Mother to the CURRENT Sphere called the WEST as a Wide, Very wide Space where ECONOMY has become a mature Concern. That doesn't come just as a Fruit of Luck or Belief: The Europeans, so to say The remote Fore-Fathers of those Who these Days are Too terrified with the Human Migration ISSUE and so fearful to even look back …
The Pioneers of The Capitalistic and even " Communismic" VIEWS worldwide were born in The West: It is sort of a a Reliquum of the Western Roman Empire which fell and let Place to the Byzantine Supremacy for a While to fall and have its Resurgens into the " Saint Empire Germanique ". Could that have not been a Reality and HISTORY, nobody would have seen the Prussians Power over other surrounding Nations nor would have witnesses any Conference in Berlin to Design or Re - Design the World Map according to the Willings of those whose IDEAS were Predominant then!
Nowadays, the World DIPLOMACY faces the Lack of such Vision amomgst European Leadership, a very useless Fear-nurtured-Way of Policy Building and Global AFFAIRS approaching.
But: Will Populists Whose REIN is starting in Western Europe and around destroy what All those Far-Looking and Real Political Revolutionaries did Build Centuries ago?
Do Read my Article and the previous One before You Answer.
EUROPE's and WESTERN DIVISIO`N is too bad a Sign of Democracy False Interpretation and the Rule of Coins instead of the Rule of Laws … Fear and Defiance instead of Vision and Pragmatism! Malthus did not SAY the World Population must be Nil to Build a successful, sustainably tolerant and lasting, more humane Economy.

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.